I don't know. I think there's a difference between making general criticisms about a concept like religion, and saying scathing things about real people. The latter is much more vitriolic, IMO, and that was really more of Hitchens' thing.

What annoys me is he does more harm than good. Instead of trying to educate people, he attacks people.(and religion in general) When you do that, you get people into a confrontational mode, and it ceases to become a debate. It's a diatribe. It's not going to convince anyone, just foster an Us vs Them mentality.

Look, if your case is so good, just lay out the facts, don't insult people, or things they hold dear. You can't force people to accept anything.

edited 2nd Feb '13 2:32:37 PM by DrTentacles

And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that's all the truth I know...

I think you need two more s. As for the incident you're talking about, I believe you're referring to the fact that several people threatened to bar Chick-Fil-A from expanding, and were promptly told to stop being stupid by people across the spectrum. We on the left do have our idiots who like to make stupid suggestions, they aren't as mouthy or powerful as the ones on the right but they do exist, they also don't represent the majority of us. Would you like to try again with an example that wasn’t A: not implemented and B shouted down by many on the left?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

I realise this is several pages back but this thread is at its most active when I'm asleep and I couldn't let it pass without comment

the lack of a connection between nicotine and lung cancer

Maxima, you do realise that's because there isn't one? Nicotine isn't a carinogen (cancer causing chemical), its merely the substance that makes tobacco smoke chemically addictive. It's all the other crap in smoke that causes lung cancers.

Yes, there are religious scientists. Yes, their careers can go far, but it increasingly seems like their being second-guessed and scrutinized more so than their non-religious peers.

As for religious gays; I'm not sure. I know there must be some, but most of the time I find homosexuals find their religious beliefs too hard to reconcile with their sexuality. Shame really, to believe in a higher power can be very rewarding for a lot of people, to have to give it up to "feel good about your sexuality" is actually a bit sad.

Yes, there are religious scientists. Yes, their careers can go far, but it increasingly seems like their being second-guessed and scrutinized more so than their non-religious peers.

Um, no. The fact that religious belief is placed on a pedestal in public society does not mean that it is (or should be) treated with the same respect in scientific circles. Religious scientists have done incredible things... when and only when their reasoning has been backed up by evidence and not 'my magic book says'.

As for religious gays; I'm not sure. I know there must be some, but most of the time I find homosexuals find their religious beliefs too hard to reconcile with their sexuality. Shame really, to believe in a higher power can be very rewarding for a lot of people, to have to give it up to "feel good about your sexuality" is actually a bit sad.

Believing that a higher power will punish you infinitely just because you fell in love with the wrong person is not psychologically healthy. Nor is participating in a community where discrimination against gays is rife and committed with self-righteous fervor.

Do you really believe that, snipe? The fact of the matter is, religious scientists are discriminated against by the nonreligious majority of their colleagues. It doesn't have a thing to do with their religion conflicting with science. It doesn't matter if a medical practitioner believes in God, for instance. It's irrelevant to one's ability to, say, perform surgery.

No, this is a case of bigotry. And people like you, snipehamster (please correct me if I've misjudged you and you're actually Christian, though people are pretty easy to understand and so I doubt it) have spent so much time thinking of yourselves (with some cause) as victims of discrimination that you're incapable of recognizing bigotry in yourselves.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

When did this become the religious/gay/atheist/whatever Oppression Olympics? How bad people have been discriminated against is completely unrelated to the veracity of what the APA says about homosexuality. This is all just pointless emotional pleading.

The Reiss issue was a giant shitstorm generated when the media misinterpreted Reiss, by my understanding, rather than an internal contention. Reiss resigned for the sake of the Royal Society's public reputation.

As for your link on Francis Collins, all that article seems to say is that he has critics. That's... not surprising.

As for religious gays; I'm not sure. I know there must be some, but most of the time I find homosexuals find their religious beliefs too hard to reconcile with their sexuality. Shame really, to believe in a higher power can be very rewarding for a lot of people, to have to give it up to "feel good about your sexuality" is actually a bit sad.

There's more then "some". A study in 2009 found that a majority of homosexuals in the US were religious of some sort. In New Zealand, a survey found that around 27% had some form of religious beliefs.

Okay, I'd like to say some things. And let's get this clear now, I'm not arguing for or against anybody's viewpoint. I argue my own, and where it dovetails or deviates from another, it is still mine.

I believe what we have here is a False Dichotomy. We're arguing statements that aren't necessarily exclusive of one another. As stated before, I don't believe in any secret cabal of scientists that got together and decided "We're going to topple religion once and for all, and we're going to start by breaking their hold on sexuality." It does make for a good plot of a movie about mad scientists taking over the world; and while there very well may be a few that think that way (few as in 1 out of 10,000) I don't find it plausible.

Flipping that around, I also find this idea that many here and elsewhere peddle of all powerful cabal of Christians who are secretly trying to discredit scientists and want to eliminate the deviants and are willing to tinker with the Holy Book to do it is likewise an imaginative fiction, but still a fiction. I'm sure many here will read that statement, and will be quick to pull out their shiny bag of links that show it's not so.

But it is. As usual these arguments derail (not from the topic, but I mean from meaningful understanding) because we're making this Red vs. Blue, when it's about humanity. We all do it. Nobody is free from Confirmation Bias and other flavors of Logical Fallacy. Getting on a high horse and saying you are demonstrates ignorance.

Scientists can and do get things wrong all the time. And this retort of "But science is always striving to check and recheck itself". First of all, so does religion. Yes, it's true. Many people here are so antipathetic to religion, it doesn't dawn on them that many Christians, as I've stated before, are dedicated to constantly checking and rechecking their interpretations. Christians belief that salvation doesn't make one perfect and the journey of perfecting your Christianity is a constant life-long process of trial and error. Simply put, the Bible itself says the Christian who becomes comfortable in his/her knowledge and beliefs is no true Christian.

On the flip side, yes, science seeks to correct and refine it's knowledge. But *some* scientists can, and sometimes are, less sanguine about having the theories and findings that they've been taught, that they've taught others, and that they've made a career out of questioned. There are scientists who, like some Christians, are about the truth, and constantly seek to know if they are correct.

But a scientist is a human being before she's a scientist. And human beings IN ANY field and vocation known to man has a natural tendency to accept the rightness of their cause, the unassailability of assumptions, and sharpness of their intellect. They are all prone to fear anyone who challenges a deeply held belief.

There are flag officers who don't believe the up-and-coming young OF-3 might actually know what she's talking about. There are people who've been lawyers and judges for 10 years who are slow to think they may have examined a case wrong. There are detectives who are brilliant investigators, but they can't accept that their police work might not be the best way.

I do not think we should make blanket accusations against any group without some evidence. But at the same time, I think the same way we assume our guys are noble and reasonable and that the conclusions they come up with rational and free of agenda, we should assume those guys are likewise.

And if we're going to harp on how the "other" guys are misguided or got it wrong or let their assumptions cloud the findings, then we must be adult enough to accept "our" guys do it too. If we do that, then rather than climbing over each other like crabs in a fucking barrel, we can pool our knowledge and join forces. It's staggering the leaps and bounds in knowledge humanity would achieve if we worked together in such a way.

I agree with much of what you said (here comes the but) but, you're once again trying to think of science as a dogma. Science is a tool. It's not a faith. In fact, it tends to try to reject the idea of the faith (not because it doesn't like faith, rather, because it's not something that's easy to build a solid foundation on.)

Science is about testing, and re-testing, redefine conclusions in because of new evidence. There is only going to be unity (as in, all scientist believe something) if there's fairly overwhelming evidence for that to be the cast. And this means evidence that passes the null hypothesis test, that they're literally 95% certain of. (And that's at the high end)

Religion, on the other hand, attempts to remain unchanging. It doesn't question itself, and doesn't re-evaluate itself because of the times. You've argued it shouldn't have to. To an extend, I agree.

And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that's all the truth I know...

And you have still failed to provide a shred of evidence to back up that assertion. The fact that religious scientists have critics and that those critics can be unfair, does not mean that some spooky global gay rights conspiracy is suppressing knowledge of homosexuality being a mental disorder. The gay rights movement has neither the power, nor the organisational skills to do such a thing, and that's without touching on if they would need to (they don't, as there’s nothing to suppress).

edited 2nd Feb '13 4:53:03 PM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Indeed, Albor. Please tell me under what terms does homosexuality count as a mental illness. I'll re-link the definition for you.

"Mental illness or mental disorder is a condition that affects thoughts, feelings or behaviors of someone who is strong enough to make social integration problematic, or cause personal suffering"

Here's another

"Mental illnesses are medical conditions that disrupt a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life."

TV Tropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy